Many East Germans miss the old communist gov't.

[Cygnus X-1]

It's a few years old, but I'm sure it holds true for today.

www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9911/09/wall.nostalgia/

I don't have much to say about this other than I can't blame them. While sixty percent welcome the the fall of Eastern European communism, over fifty percent don't like the economic changes. And that still leaves forty percent who didn't want to leave communism. Makes me feel bad for Europe... and then I turn around and look where I live.

[Meyo-san]

Communisim can be compared to despotism, and feudalism, forced labor, those with power crushing those who are forced to work under them. Communism is a new idea to an outdated system. You don't get a choice, you either work, or your killed by the state. I believe you all remember the book 1984, where it's in a world where everything is controlled by an overlord that gives no privacy to the people? That book was about communism, at least with capitalism we have the choice to work or not. Communism does not create equality, but slaves of the workers that it is supposed to "free".

[Mega Raptor]

Well, technically it's not about communism so much as about any kind of totalitarian government, but the old Soviet Union was definately more of a dictatorship than true communism.

[Cygnus X-1]

Certainly. Lenin was definitely a Marxist, but the Soviet Union, even in the early stages of its existence after October of 1917, was Marxist only to a relatively small degree. And exponentially higher degree than it was during Stalin, but none the less it was a new kind of Marxism molded to fit the Russian needs. What we now call Leninism.

But Lenin himself, when planning the revolution and the revolutionary actions, took more from Nechayev than from Marx. Indeed even distancing himself from the philosophical and dialectical aspect of it in exchange for the battle that, and you can't blame him for prioritizing, needed to be fought. Which explains his schism with Plekhanov.

All and all, the Soviet Union was a command economy to the end... thanks to Stalin's obliteration of the new economic plan. But you know, I think Gorbachev could have done some very NEP-esque things. He could have kept the USSR communist- or at least communistic, yet made things a little better in the way of personal luxuries.

Communisim can be compared to despotism, and feudalism, forced labor, those with power crushing those who are forced to work under them. Communism is a new idea to an outdated system. You don't get a choice, you either work, or your killed by the state. I believe you all remember the book 1984, where it's in a world where everything is controlled by an overlord that gives no privacy to the people? That book was about communism, at least with capitalism we have the choice to work or not. Communism does not create equality, but slaves of the workers that it is supposed to "free".

He doesn't understand. I'll be formulating my reply in a moment.

[Cygnus X-1]

Communisim can be compared to despotism,

Scientifically, one cannot compare communism to despotism. Despotism is a social and political form of rule; communism is an economic system. I believe you are thinking of totalitarianism.

and feudalism,

That is the most hair-brained, erroneous thing I have heard about the USSR to date. And when I say the USSR, I mean the USSR, as you are not talking about communism. The USSR brought Russia out of Feudalism. That is an undisputed fact. Russia was a world renowned backwards and unorganized country, and it was to be industrialized (to the point of rivaling Europe) over the course of ten years. However, what the cost was, I do not say it was worth it. Stalin's purges and five year plans were horrible and inexcusable.

forced labor,

If you're talking about the gulags, then yes, forced labor was used. But I'd like to point out that those were Stalin's devices and have nothing to do with communism. Besides, they were eradicated after Stalin's death.

those with power crushing those who are forced to work under them.

Now you seem to be straying from the gulags and insinuating that all of Russia was unhappy. The factory workers, the military, and the non-kulak agrarian peasantry were very happy, as they had gotten exactly what they had asked for from the dissenting parties. It was better than the Czar had ever allowed them. The military in particular- Krenesky kept them in WWI, and that's what got Lenin into power. Lenin didn't overthrow the Czar, Kerensky's Duma did. Lenin overthrew the incompetent Provisional Government, né Duma.

Communism is a new idea to an outdated system. You don't get a choice, you either work, or your killed by the state.

That's not communism, child. That's Stalinism. Before Stalin, what you describe never happened. After Stalin, it never happened. In Cuba, Vietnam, and for most of China's history, it never happened on the scale that it did in Russia form 1928 to 1950.

I believe you all remember the book 1984, where it's in a world where everything is controlled by an overlord that gives no privacy to the people? That book was about communism,

That book was about the Soviet Union under Stalin. Again you cannot seem to differentiate between totalitarian Stalinism and communism. And I'll remind you that its author was a socialist.

at least with capitalism we have the choice to work or not. Communism does not create equality, but slaves of the workers that it is supposed to "free".

And if one doesn't work, one starves. People want jobs! Look at how Hitler gained power: the great depression. It's not like Hitler just popped out of nowhere. He was there giving speeches from the twenties until 1930. Six million people lost their jobs and then they started listening to him.

If communism means I have to give up some freedoms, then fine! I give up my freedom to starve.


Edit: Oh noz, double post, deal with it kthx.

[Meyo-san]

*points at Cyg*

No, it is you who doesn't understand. You claim to know what communism is, yet you don't understand that if it's supposed to work, the desire for power must be eliminated, and yet, with you, it shows that communism will never be possible.

A thought comes to mind, Nazi is shorthand for National
Socialist German Workers' Party, and the murder of the last Russian Tsar and his family really doesn't warm anyone up to communism.

[Cygnus X-1]

Yagyu said:

*points at Cyg*

No, it is you who doesn't understand. You claim to know what communism is, yet you don't understand that if it's supposed to work, the desire for power must be eliminated,

With theoretical communism, yes, but let's look at actual examples of practiced socialism. There's a reason why those East Germans were happy: they had jobs, food and free health care. If that requires a few people in absolute power, so be it. And I'm not talking about Stalin, he wasn't even supposed to take power, Trotsky was. Take Spain- they democratically elected their socialist prime minister, in reaction to terrorist attacks brought on by the war with Iraq, no less. Japan's communist party holds seats in both houses. And along with the mixed economy Nordic countries, (who, by the way, have the best living standards in the entire world) much of Europe and the western world, with the notable exception of the United States, are becoming increasingly more socialistic.

A thought comes to mind, Nazi is shorthand for National
Socialist German Workers' Party, and the murder of the last Russian Tsar and his family really doesn't warm anyone up to communism.

Well, Mav, I didn't think you were that ignorant, but you have shocked me this time. Hitler was by no means a socialist. It was unemployment and a general fear of communism that got him into power. One of his very first actions in the Reichstag was to suspend all of the rights of communists. Nearly as many communists were killed under the "Socialist" German Workers' Party as Jews.
You should know that, and I think you do. You simply needed a seemingly scathing piece of evidence to uphold your flimsy uninformed argument, but it has only proven to make it flimsier.

As for the Czar, I am inclined to agree that it was unnecessary. But it’s not like Europe loved the Czars, anyway. The Triple Alliance and the Ottoman Empire absolutely loathed Russia, and the Triple Entente were allied with them for reasons that justify themselves- alliance against Austria and Germany.

[Triyun]

The Czar's enslaved the serf's for all but a few years of their rule. Brutally crushed political freedom more than the communists, sent the army on waves and waves of suicide missions and Nicholas II totally mismanaged Russia in the first World War leading to millions and millions of deaths. The Czar's were a bunch of Stalins, they weren't exactly innocent, in my opinion if they got overthrown they should have seen it coming and it would have happened with any government that came to power.

[Meyo-san]

So, how many people did the Nazis kill, hm? History records it at 25 million, but, communists have killed more people at around 100 million people. How do I get those results? Simple addition, 25 million people died during the Bolshevik and Stalin era, around 65 million in China, two million in Cambodia, and millions more in Africa, and other European/Asian countries. You know Cyg, a revolution is only judged by it's results, and communism has only produced tyrants, terror, famine, massive deportations, and death. It's interesting that a book called the Black Book of Communism is out, priced at $40, and is huge, describing all the atrocities caused by communists. And, it's not actually written by an American, but a number of scholars from around the world.

And honestly, Triyun, how the Tsar (the supposedly new official way to spell it : and his family were killed, trying to justify it, is like how Hitler justified killing Jews as not being human.

[Kensai]

Why is it that the Europeans are so big on killing the royal family when they revolt? It just doesn't make sense that they can't just exile them like the french did napolean. Is that what socialism is?

[Just a Memory]

Mav...Hitler gave the name to the Nazi party in part as a dig to communisim, seeing as he hated it, and blamed the very thing as a concpiracy started by the Jewish people...

Now Like many things, the line between Communism and Socialism is thin, probably transparent, but its there, and the fundemental difference is that, in theory Socialism would eventually lead to the eratication of any government, that people would become so used to the system, that we would need little to any enforcement, because essentiall the entire system is perfect...

And it really is...in theory

Communism is perhaps best described as a excellent idea that someone had to go fuck up...People have no bloody commen sense, and Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and probably others that i don't feel like naming right now saw this and played with the ideas and created their own form of Socialism which we generally call Communism...Unlike Socialism where the government deminishes, Communism lets the government grow, and grow and grow and grooow...and eventually explode, or implode on itself from the pressure...it works yes, its a great system but it never works long enough...well it never makes everyone happy long enough rather...

But whose happy with Capitalism? Only the rich and those who benifit from it...granted anyone can if they try, but for the most part its luck...Whose happy on the other side? those in power...its the same thing with different happy people!...with Capitalism there some people that are never happy, on the other side, there are times when everyone is happy but eventually that stops...So in a nutshell Government sucks in both cases...which sucks more? thats your decision...but why does it suck? well who made it? People...and who made people?...thats up for another debate, but blame that guy

[Triyun]

Yagyu said:

So, how many people did the Nazis kill, hm? History records it at 25 million, but, communists have killed more people at around 100 million people. How do I get those results? Simple addition, 25 million people died during the Bolshevik and Stalin era, around 65 million in China, two million in Cambodia, and millions more in Africa, and other European/Asian countries. You know Cyg, a revolution is only judged by it's results, and communism has only produced tyrants, terror, famine, massive deportations, and death. It's interesting that a book called the Black Book of Communism is out, priced at $40, and is huge, describing all the atrocities caused by communists. And, it's not actually written by an American, but a number of scholars from around the world.

And honestly, Triyun, how the Tsar (the supposedly new official way to spell it : and his family were killed, trying to justify it, is like how Hitler justified killing Jews as not being human.

So a brutal hereditary line of dictators who are responsible for many atrocities and leading his country into futile wars and starving his people in addition to enslaving them don't deserve death. Then can we count you against the death penalty for Saddam and his family? See you are so obsessed with destroying left wing dictatorships you can't see when right wing ones are just as bad. Interesting thing about Cambodia, it was communists who stopped the massacres there by the way. And for the last time Mav I don't know why you can't get this point, Stalin was never meant to come to power. What's with you thinking the Czar wasn't a terrible dictator just as bad as every soviet except Stalin. I mean Wilson loathed the Russian Government just as much as the Germans and Hapsburgs.

The thing about when your taking down a monarchy that is so dangerous that you don't want it to return is you do regretably have to kill off the family. From a pragmatic perspective of a revolutionary, to secure your government you have to do that cause it is really the only way to ensure that it doesn't come back into power. Its brutal but thats the way wars are played, you kill off a monarchy you prevent its return.

You need to get over your selective moral outrage. The fact is communists are bad, but the governments they replace often are worse. Diam was far worse that Ho Chi Minh. He built his army around forced conscription whether you were a citizen of the RoV or not. His men executed prisoners without trial. He persecuted Buddhists in a primarily Buddhist country. Finally he decided (with some help from the US) to refuse to hold the elections in '56 that were supposed to happen according to the Geneva Accords of '54. Minh became a communist because that was the only French Party that advocated the independence of French colonies. Most of Russia were slaves through the reign of the Czars. The Chinese nationalists exacted massive taxes from the populace and made themselves rich while the population starved, they were as bad as Mao, worse than the current government. Milosevic was certainly worse than Tito.

The fact is especially in China and Vietnam, the reasons the communists won despite being outnumbered and much worse equipped was they helped the people more than the nationalists. Thats not to say both weren't brutal regimes, but they were the lesser of two evils.


An economic system is not what is evil, it is tyranny itself. You should learn not to believe propaganda, there were some very very bad regimes on both sides of the Cold War. And the United States, though it was good to its own citizens was very oppressive to those abroad in many instances. We supplied some of the worst right wing dictatorships in history with arms and weapons, and Vietnam well, "we had to destroy the village to save it" was the mentality.

[Cygnus X-1]

So, how many people did the Nazis kill, hm? History records it at 25 million, but, communists have killed more people at around 100 million people.

That's simply because they weren't allowed to continue. Their ideologies were far, far worse. Communism and socialism transcend racial barriers and unite people as people, not as nationalities. I believe it was Mohammed Ali who said, in response to his protest of the Vietnam war, "At least they don't call me a nigger in Russia."

How do I get those results? Simple addition, 25 million people died during the Bolshevik and Stalin era,

Bolshevism and Stalinism are completely different. Lenin didn’t like or agree with Stalin, why can't you get that through your head? He gained power through completely illegal means. That's the crime of one man, not an entire system. Just because a few communists are bad people doesn't mean that international socialism represents evil and genocide.

Anyway, one simply cannot connect Stalin with the revolutionaries of the central committee. He didn't truly enter the picture until 1918 in the civil war.

around 65 million in China,

Mao didn't murderer any vast majority of those people. They either died in the civil war -a civil war is no other countries' business, by the way, until they are asked to help- or from the pre-existing famine.

two million in Cambodia,

Triyun has so knowledgeably taken care of that.

and millions more in Africa,

Now that's simply erroneous. Any and every devastation that has occurred in Africa is from imperialism, capitalism and the resulting racial and religious tensions. There was one socialist rising in Zaire, but its leader was democratically elected, sans bloodshed. The right-wing Mbuktu who replaced him was put into power by the US and subsequently murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

You know Cyg, a revolution is only judged by it's results, and communism has only produced tyrants, terror, famine, massive deportations, and death. It's interesting that a book called the Black Book of Communism is out, priced at $40, and is huge, describing all the atrocities caused by communists. And, it's not actually written by an American, but a number of scholars from around the world.

And NONE of that occurred before communism? Communism's human rights record is spotless compared to that of the Roman Catholic Church, Portugal, Great Britain and the United States.

And as Triyun pointed out, you always seem to ignore the atrocities of our own country and imperialist Europe. I'm the first to acknowledge that Stalin and Mao were terrible leaders, and I know that communism is corruptible. But look at all of the worst men in history. Hitler, Mussolini, any Pope prior to 1800, African warlords, Osama Bin Laden, Richard Nixon, Pinochet... countless others, all from the right.

The fact that Europe is growing more and more socialist and less and less menacing and more and more benevolent doesn't seem to register in your mind, either.

And honestly, Triyun, how the Tsar (the supposedly new official way to spell it )

That is so made up. It's Cyrillic, it can translate differently.

[Xtermo]

To all this I've but one comment, which is that communism, for all the good it would bring if it were possible, is not. Whenever the economic playing feild is leveled, someone will get ballsy enough to take as much power as they can get and ruin it for everyone by displacing communism with despotism.

People in America have the point of view of equating communism with what it has in all cases thusfar come to, which is unfortunate. It is, to me, merely an ideal that cannot realisticly be expected to be sustained for more than a single generation at a time in any nation.

[Magna]

That was quite well said X. I've got my two cents to throw in here now. I think that the problems associated with socialism and it's communist offshoots can be fairly accurately described in a few easily understandable terms. For one, socialist systems sound like a great idea, but aside from the obvious problems you will invariably face, such as corruptability, many of you seem to ignore a few simple points.

(For the purposes of this post, the terms communism and socialism will be used interchangeably. I am quite well aware that the two are not the same, but for speed and convenience, I will type whichever comes to mind first. I think that this shouldn't be too big of a problem, read my sig and you'll know why.)

1.) What is good for the one, is not necessarily good for the other. Some societies could theoretically function quite well under a socialist system, while others could not. Russians, for example were repressed for generations by the Czars (thereby making everyone BUT the royals essentially of equal status anyway), so the transition of systems was a welcome and fairly easy one. And yes despite what many Westerners say, a large section of the population was quite pleased and doing very well under communism, thank you very much. However, if you were to take the Japanese for example, or another society with a firmly established multi-tier caste system spanning back generations, then the results of a transition to socialism would be unpredictable at best. Another thing to take into account is the Asiatic fixation on the family unit. Whereby the immediate family comes before all else. This would most certainly come into conflict with communism, where the welfare of the party is the foremost concern above all.

2.) Not everyone wants to live in an equal society.
I can count myself among these numbers personally, and I'll try to explain why. Although capitalism is by no means perfect, it does place particular emphasis on a few things that I hold dear in my personal philosophy. First is self-determination. In communist society you have very little control over your destiny, I use that word destiny to mean your course in life, not the religious or spiritual meaning. In socialism you are free to choose your career (in most cases), but are limited in your opportunity for advancement by those in power. You have to know someone or be noticed by the party to increase your quality of life. This is especially true in the military of communist systems, but holds true in most other areas as well. In capitalist systems, the same can be said of course, but to a far lesser degree. Any man can make of himself what he wants, and is limited only by his will, resorcefulness and intelligence. One can start at nothing and die very well to-do. This is nigh impossible in socialism. The second point is that I believe socialism leads to a general stagnation of the very society it attempts to revolutionize. In a socialist society everyone is taught that they are all equal, that no man is different, and that ambition leads to selfishness, leads to starvation, leads to war and so on. But this creates a complacency in the general populous. A feeling that if everything will remain the status quo it is for the best. I believe in progress. That we should always be seeking newer, better ways to solve problems. To seek out the very limits of our potential, and then run a bulldozer over those limits in order to proceed onwards yet again. I believe that the efforts of a team are a powerful thing, and that no one person can possibly accomplish more personally than a society as a whole. But to treat everyone as absolute equals with no rewards, and even punishment for ambition, will eventually lead to the fall of that society to one that does reward the exceptional, which will continue to evolve and change with the times.

I believe that the few exceptional people in a society should rightly be held in higher regard than the rest. But not because they were ordained by God, or are the spawn of a high ranking official, but because they earned it. Because they rose from the ranks of the many and elevated themselves to what they believed they could be. They should be respected and admired for that, and others should attempt to follow in their example. That being said, I also think that socialist programs that care for the general welfare of all are wonderful. Government medical, welfare programs and the like are perfect. They collect revenue from everyone and distribute it evenly, regardless of status or worthiness. But socialism itself I disagree with because in a socialist system, one cannot possiblly reach his full potential and make of himself what he wishes.


Or y'know, whatever...